(09-12-2021 11:21 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  You must have a carbon-copy of this post saved and just paste it over and over, we've seen it so many times.

Sorry, but I do feel pretty strongly about everything in that post. No, I don't have a copy saved, but my thoughts remain pretty constant.

Quote:And it remains pretty spot-on.

Thanks.

(09-12-2021 11:08 AM)owl95 Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 10:45 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Where I have a problem is that dissatisfaction with the football program is manifested as dissatisfaction with the entire University. I am as guilty as any.

They are connected.

My dissatisfaction with the University outside of sports is that the average person, even in Houston is pretty much unaware of Rice in their own city. I don't know what else the University can do to raise their brand awareness but I do know that having a good football or basketball team will raise that exposure exponentially. We're still in the top 20/25 of schools but how long can that last when nobody knows your name?

For decades, Rice worked very hard to cultivate an atmosphere of aloofness and superiority toward the surrounding city. The hedges, and the phrase “beyond the hedges” were tangible symbols of that - a literal barrier between the elite and the unwashed. To some extent that attitude still exists, not outright snobbery anymore but tone deafness toward local politics and culture. Rice had made some effort at community outreach in the last few decades, but like everything else they do to reverse decline, it’s too little, too cautious, too late.

In athletics during that time period, Rice was leeching off the SWC instesd of contributing to success. The athletic facilities were in a shocking state of neglect, and Rice was positively obnoxious about boasting of its moral and intellectual superiority over the other SWC members while happy to take the money and give nothing in return.

So, as I say, it’s all connected. The administration and BOT are no longer taking the publicity value of D1 for granted, but too little, too late.

(09-11-2021 11:37 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  One thing for sure: it's a lie that Bloomgren runs some kind of "Stanford offense". Through 1½ games, Stanford has 41 passes and 36 rushing attempts. Bloomgren is much more conservative (stupid). Rice has 54 passes and 75 rushes in 2 full games.

2020 Stanford 37 passes/game 32.8 rushes
2020 Rice 26.6 passes/game 43.2 rushes

2019 Stanford 37 passes/game 28.8 rushes
2019 Rice 26.6 passes/game 35.9 rushes

2018 Stanford 32.5 passes/game 29.5 rushes
2018 Rice 28.3 passes/game 37.7 rushes

Interesting numbers, but they hardly support a conclusion that Rice does not run some version of the Stanford offense.

Nor is it necessarily true that conservative=stupid, as you seem to suggest. Some pretty conservative teams win lots of games.

As I have posted previously, I would like to see a balance, something like 45 rushes, 5.0 yards per rush, 225 yards, 30 passes, 7.5 yards per attempt, 225 yards, total offense 450 yards, with goals of 25 first downs, 30 points, and 35 minutes possession time. In the words of long-time NFL OC Ron Erhardt, "Throw to score, run to win."

(09-11-2021 11:13 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  My first Rice football game was 21 years ago, a thrilling OT win over UH (anyone know what the attendance was? I couldn't find it) ...

Next day newspaper reports gave the attendance at that thrilling overtime win on Sept. 2, 2000, as 40,714.

(09-12-2021 06:40 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 11:13 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  My first Rice football game was 21 years ago, a thrilling OT win over UH (anyone know what the attendance was? I couldn't find it) ...

Next day newspaper reports gave the attendance at that thrilling overtime win on Sept. 2, 2000, as 40,714.

A Pick Six and a blocked punt.

(09-12-2021 11:21 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 07:47 AM)jowls13 Wrote:  If you have elite level players, winning becomes easy, no matter the “system.” For an NFL example look at Adam Gase. Tremendous success with Peyton Manning and a super talented team in Denver. He had 1 scheme that he never wavered from. Did not work anywhere else. In fact in Miami and New York as head coach, he was thought of as possibly the worst coach in league.
Good coaches get the most out of their players and taylor things to their strengths. They find ways to put players in positions to succeed and ultimately find ways to win games. Bloomgren does none of that. His body of work over 4 years is frighteningly bad. At this point, it is fair to say HE IS A TERRIBLE COACH.

I don't think he is universally a terrible coach. Obviously he was anything but a terrible coach as the O-line/Co-OC at Stanford. But his system is ill-suited to the athletes that he is apt to recruit at Rice. It is the same square pegs into round holes situation that I often criticized with Bailiff, and that concerned me from day one of "pound the rock." Bailiff caught lightning in a bottle twice, with CC and TMcH as QBs (although his first year with CC was pretty dreadful). Bloomgren hasn't had that happen yet, probably because his round holes are harder to force Rice athletes into than Bailiff's were.

Look at the philosophies of the coaches who have had some success here in the last 50 years:

Fred Goldsmith--sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a QB
Ken Hatfield--do something different on offense (his teams were better early, when he had better defenses; his offenses continued to score, but his defenses declined)
Al Conover--big emphasis on special teams (his teams also played good defense, with the likes of Cornelius Walker)

And look at the ones who have failed:

Bo Hagan--fair offense, godawful defense
Homer Rice--offensive genius, godawful defense
Ray Alborn--had some success, but recruited too many bad actors who didn't pan out
Watson Brown--offensive genius, bad defense
Jerry Berndt--decent offense, terrible defense
Mike Bloomgren--improved defense and special teams, offense totally ill-suited to personnel

I'd put David Bailiff in the middle, some success and some failure but no consistency, and I'd put Bill Peterson and Todd Graham in the too small a sample size category.

Trying to come up with "best practices" from that sample, I would opt for a combination of Fred's and Ken's philosophies:

Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense.

The something different on offense would depend on your talent. It could be anything from Ruowls' passing game to Ken's option, or what I have liked since seeing Erk Russell and Paul Johnson run it with Tracy Ham at Georgia Southern (and Johnson later at Hawaii with Garrett Gabriel) 30+ years ago--a combination of the two--the option running game with the West Coast passing game, adding some run-and-shoot and air raid principles (basically West Coast for quick passing game, air raid for drop-back passes, and run-and-shoot for play action passes). It's supposedly hard to teach, but there are only about 35-40 plays (10 runs, 10ish West Coast because of the way the nomenclature works, 6 run-and-shoot, 7 air raid, and 4-5 screens and draws), so it's not a big playbook. If Georgia Southern's and Hawaii's athletes were smart enough to master it, ours should be able to. McCaffrey probably throws the ball as well as Gabriel, if not Ham, so he could probably execute it. It would be oriented more toward the run with JJ and probably the pass with Green. But the run scheme (and related personnel requirement) is totally different from "pound the rock." The o-line is more quick than big, and you don't need a pure pocket passer. Our running backs would be fine.

Quite frankly, I would never have believed that we could improve our defense as much as we have under Bloomgren and Smith and not get a lot better overall, but our offensive disaster has exceeded anything that I would ever have expected. If Bloomgren keeps trying to pound square pegs into round holes, he will (or at least should be) gone at the end of the year.

You must have a carbon-copy of this post saved and just paste it over and over, we've seen it so many times. And it remains pretty spot-on. Wish that someone in the Athletic Dept. would read it at least once, but I don't think they have the acumen to understand it. Bloom will be extended, not fired. See: Way, the Rice.

They extended Bob Polk, not sure why they would not continue doing such.....

(09-12-2021 06:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-12-2021 06:40 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 11:13 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  My first Rice football game was 21 years ago, a thrilling OT win over UH (anyone know what the attendance was? I couldn't find it) ...

Next day newspaper reports gave the attendance at that thrilling overtime win on Sept. 2, 2000, as 40,714.

A Pick Six and a blocked punt.

If I remember the winning TD by Robbie Beck (a real favorite) was 4th and 1 on the 1. Fantastic game.

(09-12-2021 06:40 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 11:13 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  My first Rice football game was 21 years ago, a thrilling OT win over UH (anyone know what the attendance was? I couldn't find it) ...

Next day newspaper reports gave the attendance at that thrilling overtime win on Sept. 2, 2000, as 40,714.

Nice, thanks for digging that up.

My most vivid memories of the game were the beginning of the MOB's halftime show (we got a huge cheer which may or may not have been due to my exhortations for crowd noise), the rather hostile UH fans, and the fireworks after the game-winner.

I turned to my section leader (yes, my first Rice football game was as a member of the MOB) after the game and asking "are all the games this good?" He just laughed. Little did I know...